Trial judge’s 13 pages of “textbook” analysis of the facts and law were followed by an apparent tirade against defendant’s perjury at the suppression hearing which led to a motion to disqualify for bias, which was granted, and delay in the proceedings. The trial judge should have just stated that he did not believe the defendant and leave it at that. The disqualification did not retroactively require a new suppression hearing. On the merits of the detention, the defendant lost on that, and it was affirmed. People v. Williams, 156 Cal. App. 4th 949, 67 Cal. Rptr. 3d 711 (2d Dist. 2007).
Warrant was sought for marijuana in defendant’s house, but the particularity clause said “‘cocaine, crack cocaine’ and collateral items believed to be related to the sale of narcotics.” The motion to suppress was denied by the trial court but reversed on appeal. The particularity clause was binding. Even plain view of the marijuana on the premises was rejected. State v. Browne, 104 Conn. App. 314, 933 A.2d 735 (2007):
The state argues that the allegations asserted by the affiants in the affidavit and warrant application reflected a consistent and continuous reference to marijuana such that the absence of marijuana from the particularity clause of both the warrant and application was merely a scrivener’s error. This argument was addressed in the recent United States Supreme Court case of Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 124 S. Ct. 1284, 157 L. Ed. 2d 1068 (2004). In Groh, the court held: “The fact that the application adequately described the ‘things to be seized’ does not save the warrant from its facial invalidity. The Fourth Amendment by its terms requires particularity in the warrant, not in the supporting documents. See Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981, 988, n.5 [104 S. Ct. 3424, 82 L. Ed. 2d 737] (1984) (‘[A] warrant that fails to conform to the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment is unconstitutional’); see also United States v. Stefonek, 179 F.3d 1030, 1033 ([7th Cir.] 1999) (‘The Fourth Amendment requires that the warrant particularly describe the things to be seized, not the papers presented to the judicial officer … asked to issue the warrant’ (emphasis in original)) [cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1162, 120 S. Ct. 1177, 145 L. Ed. 2d 1085 (2000)]. And for good reason: ‘The presence of a search warrant serves a high function,’ McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 455 [69 S. Ct. 191, 93 L. Ed. 153] (1948), and that high function is not necessarily vindicated when some other document, somewhere, says something about the objects of the search, but the contents of that document are neither known to the person whose home is being searched nor available for her inspection. We do not say that the Fourth Amendment forbids a warrant from cross-referencing other documents. Indeed, most Courts of Appeals have held that a court may construe a warrant with reference to a supporting application or affidavit if the warrant uses appropriate words of incorporation, and if the supporting document accompanies the warrant. … But in this case the warrant did not incorporate other documents by reference, nor did either the affidavit or the application (which had been placed under seal) accompany the warrant. Hence, we need not further explore the matter of incorporation.” (Citations omitted; emphasis added.) Groh v. Ramirez, supra, 557-58. Even if the state is correct that the affidavit and allegations sufficiently describe the items to be seized so as to inform the reader that marijuana, not cocaine, is the object of the search, here, as in Groh, the affidavit did not accompany the warrant.
The state also argues that the warrant was valid because the executing officer had personal knowledge of the crime being investigated and knew that marijuana, not cocaine, was the focus of this search. “It is true that the executing officer’s personal knowledge of the place to be searched may ‘cure’ minor, technical defects in the warrant’s place description. 2 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure [(2d Ed. 1987) § 4.5 (a), pp. 209-10]. However, where the inadequacy arises not in the warrant’s description of the place to be searched but rather in the things to be seized, the officer’s personal knowledge of the crime may not cure the defect. See generally 2 W. LaFave §§ 4.5-4.6 (discussing the particularity requirement in relation to a warrant’s description of the places to be searched and the things to be seized). This is so because the purpose of a warrant is not only to limit the executing officer’s discretion, but to inform the person subject to the search what items the officer may seize. United States v. Hayes, 794 F.2d 1348, 1355 (9th Cir. 1986) [cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1086, 107 S. Ct. 1289, 94 L. Ed. 2d 146 (1987)].” (Citation omitted; emphasis added.) Washington v. Riley, 121 Wash. 2d 22, 28-29, 846 P.2d 1365 (1993). The United States Supreme Court has “long held, moreover, that the purpose of the particularity requirement is not limited to the prevention of general searches. See [Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84, 107 S. Ct. 1013, 94 L. Ed. 2d 72 (1987)]. A particular warrant also assures the individual whose property is searched or seized of the lawful authority of the executing officer, his need to search, and the limits of his power to search.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Groh v. Ramirez, supra, 540 U.S. 561.
The state argues that because it had probable cause to believe that some of the collateral items were located in the house, the police officer could seize the marijuana under the plain view doctrine. “[O]bjects not named in the warrant, but found within an officer’s plain view, may be seized if the … officers had a reasonable basis for believing that the seized evidence was reasonably related to the offense which formed the basis for the search warrant. … This doctrine is based upon the premise that the police need not ignore incriminating evidence in plain view while they are operating within the parameters of a valid search warrant or are otherwise entitled to be in a position to view the items seized.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cobb, 251 Conn. 285, 347, 743 A.2d 1 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 841, 121 S. Ct. 106, 148 L. Ed. 2d 64 (2000). The problem with this theory in this case is that the police were not lawfully on the premises of the defendant where the marijuana was found. See United States v. George, 975 F.2d 72, 80 (2d Cir. 1992) (noting that plain view doctrine inapplicable when “the sufficiently particularized portions make up only an insignificant or tangential part of the warrant”). Moreover, the collateral items, standing alone without the illegal drug, would not support probable cause to believe a crime was committed. Accordingly, the marijuana could not be seized under the plain view doctrine.
